Mattias, I think you may be on to something here. These guys may well be licensing someone else's patent; that would explain a lot. For example, they used the passive voice to write that "patents have been filed," not "we have filed for patents." That would also explain the weird secrecy; if they're a non-exclusive licensee, anyone else could come along and license the same technology.

Interestingly, that would actually give me more confidence in the product. The melodramatic cloak-and-dagger stuff might be annoying, but at least the underlying technology would be worthwhile.

I think it is fairly natural to be skeptical of emerging technologies so it was no surprise when many people assumed we were simply selling high temp traditional epoxy based carbon laminate, cut to a rotor shape. The truth we felt was clearly spelled out in our name. SiCCC, Silicon Carbide, Ceramic, and Carbon Fiber. I understand it's hard to believe that a little startup could be producing product similar to that of Brembo, but its not an impossible notion especially if you compare $/gram compared to Carbon Ceramic brakes available for automotive applications. This is not to say we are selling a Brembo like product, our chemistry, and manufacturing process had to be very different to fit the form factor required for a bicycle, but they do sell the closest comparable product.

Obviously we have a vested interest in protecting our IP(I do mean our IP, as in we own it, not filed by someone else and licensed) and keeping things a trade secret for as long as possible. Those 18 months we get to wait before our patents are published are very valuable. Yes Shimano, and SRAM can purchase our rotors and reverse engineer to their hearts content, but the process we take to get to that composition is unique, and therefore will remain a secret.

We really had hoped to expound more in both video and text, but the kickstarter success meant we had to focus 100% on production. This meant 14+ hour days of manufacturing. We hope to do a better job in the future detailing the advantages of our material and goals for the future, but currently our focus has been on manufacturing, a lot of people took a chance, and it is our goal to fulfill orders before trying to sell more through marketing. We had some setbacks, bounced back, and are on track, and we appreciate the patience. I fully accept critics, and even skeptics as part of the deal, but the cynicism helps nothing. We started as 2 guys who's goal was to design product which made for a better ride, this does not mean we are owed anything, this does not mean we deserve anything, it just means were passionate cyclist like the rest of you.

Here are some photo's which you have likely all seen, but require explanations:In this photo the rotors are seen glowing red. This is part of the manufacturing process and was simply posted to show that this is not normal epoxy, as obviously there are no epoxies not even thermoplastics which can withstand the heat required to make carbon glow red. I won't explain what part of the process this is, or why we do it, but suffice to say its required to create a product which can withstand temperatures far in extreme of the friction created on even the most rigorous descents. We have yet to see, and do not expect anyone to experience a glowing red rotor in any real world situation, as cool as it might be, most pads can hardly handle those temperatures.

This picture is of a dyno run at 1500w. We are a small company and we needed a multi purpose test rig which allowed us to do both road and bench testing. We created a bench dyno and a road rig by using a trike and a custom built brushless hub motor. In this picture the rotor is being brought to over 800f and held at this temperature through pulsation, and then cooling times were recorded. We also tested failure, but were unable to reach a point at which failure could be accomplished with the friction capable from a bicycle tires traction patch. Our tests were similar to EN/DIN with the exception being we tested at a higher wattage, but that was simply because we had no method of limiting to a lower wattage accurately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSnJ9ahl5pQThis video was recorded more as a gag than anything else. I was joking around about the composition of our rotors and suggested we should load it up in a die grinder and cut some metal. I did and this ended up happening. Like a grinding wheel, when the rotor hit the aluminum core of the ICE Tech it deposited material on the SiCCC rotor. Nothing really interesting here, just what guys do at 2am working late to amuse themselves.

I appreciate your time and will do my best to answer questions.JoshCo-Founder Kettle Cycles

Nuno: Like I said on Facebook. Everyone can say what they want but implying I and thousand others who are passionate in our work aren´t pushing boundaries just because we take photos on our work, pre, during or on finished work.

I don´t care about manufacturing secrets, I will respect those, of course!Quote :" but showing off is an ego thing. What does it matter to the guy riding it? Any company that allows cameras in the shop or shows off to media isn’t pushing the boundary far enough. Patents or no, you are just giving out details that people should have to earn.'' End Quote.

Joshua: Good you are here and talking to us directly.I and many others have never heard of you before and was very interested, then your quote above and "Internet Experts" put me off big time.You know very little about me as person and my background, I MAY be an EXPERT or not.Have never meant you should share your manufacturing process secrets. I as potential buyer wants to know more about what I are buying like you.I don´t want to buy crap so, think about that when you are selling these brake discs, a very important product that can end my life abruptly.Being tightlipped is wrong approach.

I have no interest whatsoever to manufacture those stuff, but are of course curious if you have reinvented the wheel or not.The carbon fiber is a real jungle regarding patents, take a thorough look so you don´t be sued for patent infringement later.

In bottom line, I as private person and company owner welcome you and every other in our small world.

Thank you for taking the time to respond; I certainly didn't expect it. And I really didn't expect you to post a brake dynamometer photo. As Mattias points out, it's not proof of anything on its own. On the other hand, I would expect anyone serious about designing nonferrous brake rotors to have a brake dynamometer on hand (and therefore to have just such a photo available).

You cleared things up significantly in your post. As you must be aware, the bike industry is stuffed with people who make extraordinary claims, reply "it's a secret" when asked basic questions, and finally fade away with no product shipped.

I have to admit that I wonder about your stance on intellectual property. You clarified that Kettle employs the inventor (or is at least the assignee) on your patents--thanks for explaining. But this statement confuses me a bit:

joshuagore wrote:

Those 18 months we get to wait before our patents are published are very valuable. Yes Shimano, and SRAM can purchase our rotors and reverse engineer to their hearts content, but the process we take to get to that composition is unique, and therefore will remain a secret.

I don't quite follow; you've essentially claimed "patent pending" and so if Shimano, SRAM or anyone else practiced your invention, that would be intentional infringement. Intentional infringement means treble damages, which is not to be sniffed at.

But there are lots of reasons you might not want to go that way: litigation is expensive. Or you may have a key step that's unpatentable for obviousness or prior art reasons. Or maybe you're just being over-cautious. My response to any of these reasons: fair enough.

So you say the result is fairly Brembo-like. That sounds good, though I don't understand why your rotors don't look very Brembo-like. I'm still pretty skeptical, but I'm also curious as to how all this plays out. Again, as a consumer, I hope you've solved this particular problem. As an engineer, your explanation and earnest engagement make me a lot more comfortable (and interested) than I was before. Since you're shipping product now, we'll all know the answer soon enough. Like Crohnsy, I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic. Thanks for posting.

I got my rotors in the mail today. I was one of the first 10 backers for the Kickstarter project and I ordered the 1 piece rotors in 160mm front and rear.

Upon arrival today I would say I was very impressed with the quality out of the box. I have a lot of experience with carbon fiber parts and this "felt" different right away. I could tell it was harder and did have a ceramic 'ting' to it. Anyways, I stumbled across this thread while I was at work with the rotors sitting in front of me and decided I should get them on the bike before I comment. For reference, I am riding an S-Works Epic 29er with Magura MT-8 brakes. I put them on tonight and took them out around the neighborhood. On the packaging they recommend that you do 10-15 "burn-ins" at a "jogging pace" to break in the rotors. I did that exactly then took them to the top of a 3-4% grade hill. Not very steep but enough to get some speed. I got up to about 25mph and slammed on them and.... was impressed! They stopped nearly exactly the same as my Storm SL rotors, maybe a hair better. I do think they need a little more breaking in and they will get even better.

If anyone has any questions, shoot them at me and I am happy to answer them or do some tests. Note: I have no affiliation with Kettle Cycles and just am an excited rider to try and new product.

Well after my rant a few posts back, I will now have to take it all back as I also got mine last night. Since they are wider than the Ashima Ai2 Air Rotors I currently have installed and kettle recommends new pads, I will not get them installed on the cross bike until this weekend but weights are nice at ~53 & ~54 grams for the pair.

@aaronpass: You've theoretically voided the warranty on your Magura MT8s by using them with non-Magura rotors. Perhaps you knew this and its not a big deal to you, but in case it is I thought I'd mention it (could swap back and pretend it never happened). Of course they might be nice and not enforce the language in their warranty caveats, but I wouldn't bank on it.

The truth we felt was clearly spelled out in our name. SiCCC, Silicon Carbide, Ceramic, and Carbon Fiber. I understand it's hard to believe that a little startup could be producing product similar to that of Brembo, but its not an impossible notion especially if you compare $/gram compared to Carbon Ceramic brakes available for automotive applications.

I'm still fascinated by these discs, a little by whether or not they work, but more so the cost vs material. As far as I'm aware, Silicon Carbide is a ceramic so they are effectively a carbon ceramic rotor, or at least that's how it reads (ceramic, ceramic, carbon fib(er)). On a cost per gram basis, with cycling products it usually works out inversely, so the lighter a product, the more expensive it gets. On that theory the bike rotors should be many times the price of the Brembo discs In all seriousness, $99 for carbon ceramic disc is very cheap.

That has me wondering even more. Carbon ceramic doesn't have a weave pattern on the surface. I have heard of people ceramic coating carbon fibre, but that wouldn't explain the high achievable temperatures.

I'm just thinking out loud now, but I'm struggling to see how a new, soon to be patented technology, is able to produce parts so cheaply. I might just have to get my hands on one and take a look

re: alloy bolts - the saving - a mere 6 g over Ti bolts is not worth the risk in my opinion. We are aware that when torqued up properly, the sheer interface is not in the bolt but in the clamped area of contact of the disc toro and hub - and hter is the first problem of having an accurate torque wrench .... plus there have been stories of the heads rounding off. .... but i digress.

one question with the carbon rotors - why slots fo the bolts instead of holes?

My less than informed guess is that it was easier and safer to use slots as holes would either need to be molded or drilled. Drilled holes seem problematic for this application and molded holes would add to the complexity and cost.

Mounted my single piece rotors on a set of Enve Twenty9 XC tubulars with DT 240S 6-bolt hubs for use on my Raleigh RXC Pro disc cross bike. I am running Shimano CX75 mechanical disc calipers with the stock pads (resin) and the rotor on front wheel works well, is very true, and after a 45-minute test ride, very quiet. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the rotor on the rear wheel as it appears to be warped in one section as the rotor moves ~3-4mm laterally. This was not an issue with the Ashiman Ai2 rotor this rotor replaced but I need to remove the Kettle rotor and set it flat on a table or desk to confirm it is warped but at this point, I am doubtful that one of the disc mounts on the hub is off by that much!

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum